Search form

You are here

Redundancy Between Kata

As is often mentioned, Anko Itosu designed the Pinan series to essentially provide a summative and easily digestable method for practicing the techniques contained in several Shuri-te kata. Indeed, if you look at a form like Kusanku you will notice numerous sequences that appear at various points during the five Pinan kata. It stands to reason, in my mind, that movements which are essentially the same were intended to represent the same techniques. Yet, a lot of karate schools tend to teach these overlapping kata (such as the Pinan series and Kusanku). Is this tendency the result of a karate culture that does not pay enough attention to bunkai? If more karateka focussed on the application of techniques, would they see the need to streamline their kata, to avoid redundant techniques during training? Is it beneficial to include both older kata and their newer derivitives despite (or because of) this repitition? Thoughts?

that is an interesting question. In my eyes you can not divorce a single movement from the context of a whole kata sequence. The actual application of a certain movement has to be seen in the correct context (the movements before and after).

So when you think of a single movement you can find loads of applications for it. But is 75 applications for a gedan barai that what you want. Certainly not (I hope). In an emergency you simply don't have time to choose from the 75 possibilities.

So you have to ask yourself where do I come from and how do I got there (before movements). Than you can ask yourself, what now since I am in that position. And finally you can consider the options of how to follow up and finish (after).

Different kata provide different solutions. Redundancy is not that bad I think. But 42+ kata are not necessary I give you that.

On eone of Iain's podcasts (I have a feel that it's the "My Stance on Stances" one he answered a question about the -Dai and -Sho variations of the kata. I think that answer extends beyond just (say) Bassai Dai and Bassai Sho and into any kata in which sequences are emulated from other kata. That may be a worthwhile starting point toward answering this question.

My first post so apologies if too strong/ irrelevent/late or wrong format, and I certainly make no claim to be an expert, being only Nidan in a school based on Shotokan and with limited exposure to realistic bunkai.

IMHO all traditional kata overlap, beause there are only a limted number of situations (habitual Acts of Physical Violence) one can face, and a body is a body whether in 1600 or 2012. Having said that I have heard that Nijushiho (apologies for the Shotokan terminology but I'll use it for convenience - my convenience of course!) is a vital point striking kata whereas Gojushiho uses a large amount of throws, which explains their relative length. Empi doesn't look like Sochin in style and so on.

This makes sense to me because we are all individuals, and what works for my height build strength agility and mindset may not work for someone else, and vice versa. As for redundancy, a large syllabus will maintain interest, and it"s always good to see how someone else deals with the same problems. I have found that a light has been shone on something I had originally disgarded, not being proficient enough to use it at that time, or lacking the understanding needed. The idea that everyone should end up with their own individual kata using their own preferred techniques seems to me to be valid, but for most of us this is a work in progress over half a lifetime, and lets face it most of us are lucky enough not be have enough experience of real violence to validate all our methods in practice anyway. Hence we have to borrow off the masters!

As an aside I am currently studying Nijushiho, and have found plenty of good applications for rear grabs, kicks, pushes, rugby tackles etc, but am really not satified with the sequence haisho age-enpi ending with gedan barai. The best I can come up with is maybe from a clinch pull onto an upwards elbow followed by a grab of the head with a punch to the mid section. Trouble is all the throws using gedan barai on the withdrawl seem rather contrived. Any help with this would be gratefully received, maybe on a different thread if appropriate.

Thinking on the Kusanku - Pinan relasionship, I think it is no more complicated that Itosu Sensei used the Pinan kata set for the school children to learn, they are similer forms to teach than the classicals.

We have discussed loads around this and there are several good posts.

Itosu Sensei did not teach effective Bunkai to the school children, the kata were for something else, in the context they were used.

(I accept the movements are certianly effective as shown very niceley by Iain often etc.).

There is an old saying: To understand the new, we must go back and leanr from the old ways.

I feel that It's necessary to learn the tradional Katas so we as students/Instructors can understand the Modern Katas approach. In my dojo, my sensei before he took Kyokushin, he learned Shotokan in the secondary school,at the same time, he earned his Kuro Obi and he would show katas such as Pinan/Heian and others for us students to observe the old school appraoch of Katas of It's early foundation and bunkais.

Drew Loto wrote:

As is often mentioned, Anko Itosu designed the Pinan series to essentially provide a summative and easily digestable method for practicing the techniques contained in several Shuri-te kata. Indeed, if you look at a form like Kusanku you will notice numerous sequences that appear at various points during the five Pinan kata. It stands to reason, in my mind, that movements which are essentially the same were intended to represent the same techniques. Yet, a lot of karate schools tend to teach these overlapping kata (such as the Pinan series and Kusanku). Is this tendency the result of a karate culture that does not pay enough attention to bunkai? If more karateka focussed on the application of techniques, would they see the need to streamline their kata, to avoid redundant techniques during training? Is it beneficial to include both older kata and their newer derivitives despite (or because of) this repitition? Thoughts?

Yet, a lot of karate schools tend to teach these overlapping kata (such as the Pinan series and Kusanku). Is this tendency the result of a karate culture that does not pay enough attention to bunkai? If more karateka focussed on the application of techniques, would they see the need to streamline their kata, to avoid redundant techniques during training? Is it beneficial to include both older kata and their newer derivatives despite (or because of) this repetition?

I would say the modern “the more the better” approach to learning kata is a direct result of schools becoming less bunkai focussed. As Funakoshi said, “in the past people studied narrow and deep whereas today they study wide and shallow”. I feel there is value in studying related kata though. It’s just how it is approached as part of wider learning.

It typically will take 6 or 7 years to gain 1st dan under my syllabus. The kata learnt up to that point are the Pinans and Naihanchi. Obviously it’s not just the external form that is learnt, but all our associated two-person drills etc. I would suggest that this is much “slower” than the kata are “learnt” in most groups. This is because we are not “kata collecting” but looking to achieve a high level of understanding and application. The quality of the solo kata is also given precedence over the quantity of kata.

As regards redundancy, there is no explicit redundancy between the Pinans and Naihanchi; although there is obviously common ground in terms of principle and tactic, if not so much on the technique side of things. From 1st dan to 4th dan they will also study the applications of Kushanku, Seishan, Chinto and Passai.

I see value in studying these extra kata as the student get to learn the kata from which the Pinan draw. They also get to see the various methodologies of the Pinans utilised within an alternative system / skill set; which can lead to a greater understanding on the role and nature of that methodology.

One thing we don’t do in practise is repeat basic drills for common motions. When the student learns Pinan Shodan, they will learn a few drills related to the application of shuto-uke. Once they have demonstrated competence with the core drill they are encouraged to vary the drill and make it theirs. The process does not restart when they start learning Kushanku and the associated drills. The students understand that they learnt the drills for shuto-uke as part of the Pinan study, so we instead concentrate on the “signature methods” of Kushanku i.e. the things that are unique to Kushanku kata.

So that’s how we manage the issue of redundancy: Learn the kata slowly and deeply, acknowledge and understand the links / crossovers, and avoid unnecessary repetition when it comes to bunkai drills as a whole. It is an important issue to address and I look forward to reading more about how other members approach this.

It typically will take 6 or 7 years to gain 1st dan under my syllabus. The kata learnt up to that point are the Pinans and Naihanchi. Obviously it’s not just the external form that is learnt, but all our associated two-person drills etc. I would suggest that this is much “slower” than the kata are “learnt” in most groups. This is because we are not “kata collecting” but looking to achieve a high level of understanding and application. The quality of the solo kata is also given precedence over the quantity of kata.

As regards redundancy, there is no explicit redundancy between the Pinans and Naihanchi; although there is obviously common ground in terms of principle and tactic, if not so much on the technique side of things. From 1st dan to 4th dan they will also study the applications of Kushanku, Seishan, Chinto and Passai.

Just out of curiosity, is there a particular reason you pick those kata (Kushanku, Seishan, Chinto and Passai)? Or was that just an arbitrary list.

"I would say the modern “the more the better” approach to learning kata is a direct result of schools becoming less bunkai focussed."

I think that the many kata-no depth concept is to make students think they are learning new things without challenging them too much. It is about retaining students for a long time. A continuiing source of income for the sensei.

Just out of curiosity, is there a particular reason you pick those kata (Kushanku, Seishan, Chinto and Passai)? Or was that just an arbitrary list.

Those are the kata are felt to be the best fit with the “core kata” of the Pinans and Naihanchi, Kushanku, Chinto and Passai are obvious influences on the Pinans; hence it is beneficial to study the “origins of the Pinan system”. Seishan also contains some very interesting drills and technaiwues which again fit with the wider methodology. The kata Jion, Jitte, Wanshu, Rohai and Niseishi were also a key part of my personal martial education, but they have been “put on the back burner” in my teaching as they don’t fit with our overall methodology as cleanly as the others and, as has been discussed in this thread, there is a need to reduce the breadth of kata as the depth of study increases.

I like the idea of keeping the number of kata learnt to a minimum in order to concentrate on quality and depth of understanding. I would love to see Iain do bunkai videos for Jion and empi. They are two katas I like doing but feel my interpretation of them is weak.

I'm particularly biased about having a small number of kata because of being a Goju practitioner.

Take out Tensho and Sanchin and you'll only have 10 kata with bunkai. And in reality I only get in depth on the 8 classical that come after the Gekisai. But the Gekisai have techniques and oyo out of the other 8 so they make a good introduction as the oyo will carry over to the other 8 kata.

One thing to beware of though- just because a move may look the same on the surface, doesn't mean it's the same. Good examples are out of Shisochin and Suparenpei where it initially looks like the same turn and hand technique in 4 directions. However, the numbe of degrees you turn and how your feet are moving with the different turns give up different explanations. But if all you're looking at is the hand movements, they all look exactly the same.